Old 3-hole/4-hole binding article.

[dano]

I came across this OLD 2000 article on an unrelated search.

Kind of interesting and yet another reason to be annoyed with Burton

http://www.twsbiz.com/twbiz/industrynews/article/0,21214,705539,00.html

[Thor VonRippington]

Like I needed another reason

[Jack M]

Do Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. have to pay Canon royalties for making lenses that fit Canon cameras?

[pebu]

It doesn't really seem like something that is patentable. I mean, anybody could just go and patent a shoe with 10 shoelace eyelets and then sue everybody for infringement? If they actually have a valid reason, that 3 holes is supposed to be better than 4, then I could understand their concern on something like that. Bottom line is they DO have a patent on it... Whether or not it deserves a patent is something totally different.

[kipstar]

Well in USA/around the world where you have the ability to patent a sideways swinging motion use of a swing as a 'new work', and where a New Zealand boat was sued for using the concept of a canting keel (which was first invented in USA almost 100 years ago, and where it has been used in racing in NZ since the 1960s) which is apparently also patented, it seems like you can patent anything. (The boat, Maximus, ended up settling).

Whether it will stick or not is another thing. I think Libtech claimed prior art (sorry, not thinking straight, I studied IP law a Loooooong time ago) as they had done the 3 holer (ooooer) 10 years earlier, with a slightly bigger footprint.

Anyway, stupid idea, 4 hole is better. Why? Because you get an extra hole :-) at no extra cost. That's right, an extra hole for no money now, absolutetely free.

Send no money now I REPEAT SEND NO MONEY NOW. We'll bill you.

[philfell]

It doesn't really seem like something that is patentable. I mean, anybody could just go and patent a shoe with 10 shoelace eyelets and then sue everybody for infringement? If they actually have a valid reason, that 3 holes is supposed to be better than 4, then I could understand their concern on something like that. Bottom line is they DO have a patent on it... Whether or not it deserves a patent is something totally different.

Keep in mind that when Burton did develope thier 3 hole system there was NO 4x4 system. You had very limited stance adjustments and there were also many compatibility issues with what was available before. So the 3D system was a huge advancement. Then the season after Burton released the 3D the light went on for everyone else and then the 4x4 system came out across the board, so to speak.

[Justin A.]

I'm not sure how this issue came out, but if Burton had their way and got all the binding manufacturers to stop producing 3D discs, then wouldn't burton be free to alter their bindings to only accept burton boots? Then every new rider who wanted a burton board would have to buy the Burton board, Burton Bindings, and Burton boots. How ****ing scummy.

Hehehehehe my cateks have both patterns in the disc. Shhhhhh! Don't tell Burton.

[Derf]

Wasn't the 4x4 pattern invented by F2?

A quick Google search pointed me to this that would confirm it: http://www.nyx.net/~mwallace/old_faq/